The Division Maxed Out PC Screenshots Look Completely Different From Ubisoft’s 4K PC Screenshots

The Division

The Division will get a closed beta at the end of this month. The beta has been confirmed for all the major platforms including PS4, PC and Xbox One. Some users are already playing the beta of The Division which has resulted in plenty of new information from the game including screenshots of the PS4 version.

If you wanted to get a glimpse of the PC version of the game at the maxed out settings, you can check out the screenshots below.

The beta tester who shared these screenshots confirmed that they were maxed out on PC. According to him, the game requires a very high VRAM usage and has some odd fps drops.


Ubisoft has recently shared some 4K screenshots of The Division on PC and the beta tester shared his maxed out screenshot stating that the screenshot that was released by Ubisoft was just a “rendered bullshot” that is not possible on PC.


Ubisoft has faced a lot of controversy over pre-release screenshots in the past that don’t represent the graphical quality of their games, and are often misleading. They began to face criticism over it starting with Watch Dogs on PS4 and Xbox One and leading into Assassin’s Creed Unity, and now it is The Division. They did learn their lesson with Assassin’s Creed Syndicate so it is strange to see them repeating it with The Division.

Let us know what you think about these screenshots in the comments below.

  • William Fenton

    Yea, pick the most unflattering screens imaginable and it will look awful.

    Learn how to take better screens whoever did this, you can make any game look bad if you cherry pick like this.

  • William Fenton

    People don’t know what they’re looking at.

    It’s a bullshot because that Ubi screen almost certainly rendered even higher than 4k, and is extremely carefully selected in the best possible time of day, and the most flattering asset composition– there is also some heavy PP going on.

    The scene is also very much composed for the shot.

    Instead of glancing, as people always do, and going ‘wow, that looks nice’. Actually scrutinise the individual components– look at the objects like the cone and the ambulance, those are definitely the same.

    If I ran the game at 8k, sampled down, and added some PP I could get the game looking like that as well.

    It’s still a bullshot in essence, but everything you see is actually present in the game.

  • NeedleDickDoug

    Okay, after the open beta, I’m officially kind of excited.

  • Jimmy Valentine

    fcking ubisoft liar dog.. I hate these fcking ubisoft devs always misleading people and releasing almost all ubi games in a broken state >_< but I don't know why I still buy their games.. I just really hope they die someday like maybe today

  • William Fenton

    It’s so obviously an overly dressed setpiece, and it’s also obviously running at 4k AND supersampled down from something ridiculous like 8k.

    They pick the perfect location, and lighting, and as said above overfill the scene with far more assets than you’ll see in a practical game.

    It’s certainly a bullshot, but you can’t compare some crappy jpeg running at what appears to be 1080p to this.

  • Paul

    The part I loved the most is when he said it’s not possible on PC, of course it’s possible if you give it the hardware, it just depends how high end they want to push.

    Let’s put it this way, could you imaging a game on PC using dx12 or Vulcan with Intel high end 8 core cpu, 4 Titan cards and 64gb of memory, all of which any of us can do without going into the supercomputer category, but god forbid what that game would look like, we’re talking about 10x plus more power then the PS4 and using closer to the metal api’s.

  • Weezy Got that Sack

    Maybe you should also realize that the user who captured these, which I have seen in another chat, had the game running at 1080P AND NOT 4K!!! If you’re going to write the article then please gather the correct information.

  • Ephantt

    All screenshots by Ubisoft are bullshots. The Crew was the worst offender so far.

  • Hannibal Is at the Gates

    How do you know for sure its on max, for instance I see no shadows. I cant believe Ubisoft removed all game shadows. I want to see him max the game out in settings then run the game. Until then I call bullshit. Screen shots and his word add up to nothing.

  • David Verduzco

    for those of you saying its compressed and stuff, sure, but still look at the people’s face, it looks horrible, not talking about quality, i mean seriously, ps3 games have games with better faces then that, these faces look so stiff and weird

  • Fred

    The game looks great, just watch videos in HD. The game will look fine, these pictures look slightly compressed to me. You can see the compression marks.

  • hzd

    Wow and it still looks like a heap of shit on PC maxed out.

    Hell the console screens look even worse still, this game is going to go down like a lead ship.

    It’s like watch dogs taught any developers nothing

  • JY Yew

    The final release will obviously look better with those nvidia gamewoks stuff (but run way worse) at max settings.
    but then the gameplay feels repetitive.

    also whil nvidia gameworks will add more special effects, the streets still look very empty (and i dont think something called streetworks will be released to add more stuff on the streets to make it look like the e3 footage)

    • AndroidVageta

      StreetWorks LOL! That’s awesome.

      • JY Yew

        dont forget roadworks, skyworks, carworks etc. and it can run at an amazingly high 10 fps

  • Ubisoft… Lying pieces of sh**. Never buying another one of their products again. Pisses me off that we can’t never get what’s shown at E3…

    • Weezy Got that Sack

      You realize the screenshots are of the game at 1080p and not 4k?

    • Grephus

      It’s not running at ‘maxed’ settings, as reported on other sites. HBAO+ hasn’t been available due to bugs.

      Also, it’s probably very unlikely most PC hardware would even be able to handle running it at the graphic settings they showed off at E3. . . . . 3 years ago. When Titan didn’t even exist. That should’ve been a dead giveaway, imo.

      But, you know, people want to complain they can’t see the pimples and pockmarks in full HD + tesselation on their characters and debris on the ground most of us will ignore beyond half an hour of playing. There’s no such thing as being reasonable anymore I guess.

      More power to you for wanting to post about companies lying about their products (man, what an uncommon thing in this world, almost no other company does that).

      • NeedleDickDoug

        Right? We should just be complacent with rampant dishonesty that costs consumers money.

        • Grephus

          Things change over a span of three years. You’ll have to explain how they’re being dishonest about this, though. The company hasn’t exactly come out and said, ‘Oh yeah guys it looks totally the same as it did at an E3 presentation we did ages ago don’t worry!’.

          Ubisoft isn’t the only company tuning down graphic fidelity to better suit current-gen hardware. Witcher 3 did it, but you don’t see as many people going insane over it.

          Honestly, if people go out and impulse buy a game /today/ based off early footage from three years ago then they totally deserve to lose their money for not being an intelligent consumer.

          Now if only people were /this/ passionate about Comcast and their dishonest test-region data usage policies..

          • NeedleDickDoug

            So, it’s cool for companies to show a product one way with lots of features and effects, and deliver the product with fewer and without any acknowledgement of the regression?

          • Grephus

            When people are going insane over a graphical downgrade it off a promotional video that came out three years ago expecting it to be the same today, yeah, it’s a problem.

            That’s like looking at a commercial on TV for a brand new car you want, and when you finally go to the dealership years after you’ve seen said commercial they still miraculously have that same car. They go and show it to you and when they do you find out the paint’s faded and the radio is missing. But you buy it anyway. And then whine about how dishonest they were because of a commercial you saw.

            Or going to a fast-food joint and expecting one of their burgers to not look like hot wet ass, and instead be identical to the image they see on the menus.

            I agree with you, though. It’s not cool if a company shows a product one way with features/etc and delivered something different. I agree with that IF they kept pushing gameplay videos with the same kind of quality effects/features today (which they have not been – taking a look at the recent E3 gameplay and other videos within the last year will prove that).

            Recent videos posted should be what people should expect. Not the stuff they saw at E3 in 2013.

            You’ve said they’re being dishonest. And yet they’re showing you what you’re getting before you even have to drop a dime on it. How is this being dishonest again? Just because you expected something to be there and that something changed in the development cycle doesn’t mean they were being dishonest about it. It just means you had unreasonably high expectations and you’re pissed you were let down.

            It happens a lot in life. You’ll get used to it.

          • NeedleDickDoug

            I watched my wife die after 2 yrs of marriage, you don’t need to be condescending to me about high expectations and being let down in life. You just look like an ass, no matter the context.

            With that said, no one is going insane over downgrades, although the vocal minority may be dramatic, you should have the sense to understand that.

            Describing the aging and oxidation that happens to tangible products, not to mention products which cost 10s of thousands of dollars, and relating it to a video game’s regression in development is absurd. There are a million reasons to purchase a car, with many different purposes, entertainment being only one facet. Video games are far more specific in their intent to be entertainment products.

            Also, yes. They are being dishonest when they pay no acknowledgement to the changes in the game that we’ve been seeing.

          • Grephus

            ..I’m the ass, and yet you’re the one bringing your dead wife into this. On a website primarily geared toward gaming. Something that has no meaning in the topic at hand. What are you looking for, here, sympathy? On the internet? Huh. All right, friend.

            Dishonesty =/= Not communicating their changes. It isn’t rocket surgery, buddy. You didn’t fund a kickstarter project for a product you thought you were going to get. They didn’t specifically tell you that you would get the same quality of product they’ve shown off at E3.

            Whether they tell you or don’t tell you the changes they’ve made the only thing that matters is the final product. You were shown something recently about the product, and that’s what you’re getting. Don’t like the product in its current state? Don’t buy it. Really that simple.

            What fantasy island do you live on where everybody’s got to tell you everything lest they be labelled as dishonest? I sure would love to go there some time, NeedleDick.

          • NeedleDickDoug

            Wow, they’re making ’em dumb these days.

            Didn’t say you were an ass, said you look like an ass when you’re so condescending. Don’t know you, but you’re probably alright. My bringing up my departed beloved has nothing to do with gaming, you’re right. It has everything to do with why you should consider refraining from speaking condescendingly [or in a way that makes you seem superior, smarter, or the other person inferior, or less smart – in case you didn’t know what “condescending” meant] towards people when you’re attempting to have some kind of discussion. Unless you aren’t trying to have a discussion?

            Anyway, your perception of honesty is really weird.

            “Also, it’s probably very unlikely most PC hardware would even be able to handle running it at the graphic settings they showed off at E3. . . . . 3 years ago.”

            So, they showed a product that was impossible to run, by your assessment, yet this isn’t dishonest, because it’s up to the consumer to KNOW what they’re purchasing? They were allowing pre-orders as early as June 2014, nearly 2 years ago before they even had their engine stable, and that is honest? The differences between the advertised product varies significantly from 2013/2014/2015, and yet there hasn’t been anything acknowledgement of it, and that is honest?

            When you show a trailer for a game [with the exception of “ALPHA” and “PRE-ALPHA” games], and announce pre-orders, there is and always has been an unspoken understanding due to a precedent set over decades that what you see in a trailer on a website, or when all you had were screen shots in PCGamer Magazine, they were representative of a finished product, even if the game was still being developed. Maybe you’ve only been a part of PC gaming for a few years, but it has only been in recent years where there has been a shift away from delivering what is advertised. Watch underscore Dogs being one of the worst culprits of nerfed visuals, in my experience. AC Black Flag, Unity as well as Far Cry 3 and 4 were all subject to similar regressive treatments, resulting in all kinds of issues that took months for each to patch out.

            With that being said, Ubisoft themselves have set a precedent for releasing broken, unfinished, and poorly performing games. The only one they’ve had actually run GREAT in recent years has been AC Rogue.

            Also, it doesn’t take a fantasy island for people to respect each other and communicate with one another. People and companies alike. In the gaming industry there are certain companies who make no attempt at communicating with their customer base after a game has released. Rockstar took over 2 years to announce the release of GTAV to PC, finding out later that they had intended on it since inception, developing the game with extremely high res textures and then compressing for consoles, for instance. Rockstar and Avalanche have had no communication with members on forums inquiring, for months now, about increased FOV support, and Avalanche has yet to respond about future SLI support for Just Cause 3.

            Over the last handful of years, the industry has changed a lot, Ubisoft being a persistent perpetrator. I don’t get why you’re so set on defending them.

  • There might be a chance that they haven’t actually implemented the highest quality textures in the beta to keep down the size of the download.

    There are plenty of games that release with higher resolution textures than what was provided at the beta stage.

    And there is also a lot of games that provide a high resolution texture pack after release to those interested.

    That said this is Ubisoft and I’m not sure if this is even remotely what they are thinking of doing.

    • TheTony

      It’s Ubisoft.

    • AndroidVageta

      The textures I could agree with. Would make sense. As far as everything else goes like the bad lighting, the lack of garbage/clutter/props, the lack of high-end physics, etc will not be making a come back.

    • -El_Greeko-

      I doubt it. The game uses 5GBs of VRAM on Ultra Settings.

  • Bezki

    Why i’m not surprised????

  • Grephus

    Interesting that some of these screenshots (from the beta tester) look almost exactly the same graphically, but some of them have Xbox prompts (like an X button), and some of them have ‘keyboard’ inputs.

    Why would anyone play a PC shooter with an Xbox controller? Something doesn’t add up.

    • codywildgust

      People play third person shooters on PC with controllers all the time…it’s just personal preference, there’s no conspiracy here.

      • Grephus

        I suppose we’ll see in exactly one week, then. The screencaps resemble more of an Xbox One quality being reported on various other sites more than anything else. Maybe it’s me?

        I’m doubting the validity of these screenshots, personally. I don’t expect them to be the bullshot 4k ones Ubi posted, but.. I don’t know. The publisher doesn’t exactly have a good history with these kinds of things.

    • Dude, I almost ALWAYS play 3rd person shooters with a controller, even when I know they would be better with a mouse and keyboard. You won’t catch me dead playing a FPS with a controller though, big no, no.


    hmmm need full check for final version ..still beta is half finished or not polished enough so cant judge the game isn’t released yet

    • AndroidVageta

      Half finished? You know the game comes out in a little over a month, right? It’s about as finished as it’s going to get.

  • Spencer

    Beta visuals are not final visuals. And taking a bunch of screenshots in different conditions and times of day and locations and then expecting it to look the same is really, really stupid.

    Wait for the full release, kiddos.

    • AndroidVageta

      Says who? Beta isn’t Alpha. Beta is basically done they’re just doing server load tests and checking for bugs. I’ve seen no beta exit beta looking better in final release. So please, can you tell me where you heard from someone at Ubi or otherwise that’s said that this isn’t final representation of the game? You know it releases in a little over a month right? Why would they remove so much just for the beta?

      Basically, your comment is wrong, makes no sense, and has no backing to support it.

      • DLConspiracy//

        Game releases have not been the final releases even after beta lately. They always put out patches for 3 month at least to fix everything after its launched. Just saying.

      • Spencer

        It saddens me how little you children know about game development and what a beta actually is.

        As for where it says “not a final representation of the game”, try at the very f**king beginning splash screen before the game even starts

        • Bezki

          Gets called out. Instantly resorts to insults. GGWP.

          • Spencer

            Insults? How? I can only assume the lack of experience or knowledge lends itself to you being children.

        • AndroidVageta

          It saddens me when people like you act like you know about game development. The game is releasing in a little over a month. The graphics aren’t going to make some generational leap and look like they did in 2013 or 2014 just because it’s a beta.

          Again, it’s not I or others that don’t know what they’re talking about, it’s you. It’s beta. Tests for bugs and server load. What you see is what you’re going to get. Now maybe in the future things might change (like re-enabling global illumination/indirect lighting, more clutter in the streets, etc) but nothing that’s been removed has been so because it’s beta. The only thing I could see that MIGHT be in the final release would be higher resolution textures…just to keep the beta size down. But that’s it.

          Missing lighting effects has no reason to be gone. Less garbage and clutter in the streets has no reason to be gone (it would take more time and money removing this stuff for the beta than would be worth saving a couple gigabytes download size), no reason to dumb down the dumbed down physics (again, considering this is beta you would WANT this stuff in here), etc.

          So yeah, no, you’re wrong. Unless the developers for some assbackwards reason decided to remove half the assets from the beta (which they wouldn’t) then things aren’t getting better. Period.

          • Spencer

            All of what you said would make sense if the beta builds were half a year old, which they are, because it’s a beta.

            Get back in line at the clueless convention, chief. You’re wrong.

          • AndroidVageta

            Wow, I wasn’t expecting more bullshit. I thought that for sure you’d learn to keep quiet.

            Alright then, so the dev’s are testing the game for bugs and server issues using a 6 month old build. Yeah, because that’s a thing. What better way to test a game coming out in a month then by using a half a year old build!

            Can you tell me where you’re getting that’s a 6 month old build then?

          • Spencer

            The definition of what a beta is. Have you ever even watched a single video about how video games are developed? You don’t use a January build for a beta for a game that’s getting mastered in another month. That just doesn’t happen. Visual polish is one of the FINAL features finished on a game, you’re using an old build, AND they have another month left.

            Honestly, don’t be an idiot.

            Can you tell me where you’re getting that it’s anything resembling a recent build of the game? Where on earth do you see “most recent build!” Written anywhere?

            Learn a thing or two about how games are made before trying to talk to me. Clearly, you don’t know anything.

          • AndroidVageta

            You said the current build is 6 months old. I asked where you’re getting that from. Do you have a source for this?

            Also, 6 months old or not do you think the dev’s are going to take a better looking game prior to, downgrade it, then upgrade it for some reason with months to spare? And you’re telling me to not be an idiot? Really?

            What you see it what you get. Argue with me all you want but it’s the truth. You act like we aren’t talking about an Ubisoft game or something…

          • Spencer

            The game didn’t exist in 2013. What you saw wasn’t a game, it was a tech demo. They built the game to try to match that. You’re whining about graphics that aren’t close to final, based off an old build. Is it necessarily 6 months old? No, it could be 3, or 4, or even 2. Regardless, what we will be seeing is not a January build of a game.

            You don’t need a source for common knowledge. The assertion that a beta is anything BUT a months old build would require a source.

            What you see is what you get… For the beta. Beta footage is not, and has never been, and never will be, final footage.

          • AndroidVageta

            I’m not going to argue with you. We’ll see in a month when you’re wrong.

            Also, I like the part where no one from Ubi or anywhere else that would know is saying anything against this being final graphics.

          • Spencer

            Yeah, we will see in a month when you’re wrong. I get the impression you are pretty often.

            I like the part where your “proof” is no one denying something that is normally obvious. People like you are why we need warnings on packages of peanuts.

          • AndroidVageta

            Oh totally. Because you completely backed up everything you claim to be true. Yep, I’ll keep this in my storage folder just so I can watch you not respond back to me once you’re proven wrong when the game releases.

            Because, we all know how games end up looking better at release then how they’re shown before! /no game ever

            What a fool.

          • Spencer

            Enjoy looking like a pathetic internet tool like the rest of them, kiddo 😉

          • AndroidVageta

            Yep, because every single beta I’ve ever played always looks better at launch. /s

          • Spencer

            That’s usually the case, chief!

          • AndroidVageta

            Do you know what “/s” stands for? Sarcasm.

            Either way, you seem to have a history of denial and being wrong so I won’t continue with you any longer. Good job supporting your claims and arguments with facts and sources though! That’s always the best way to debate with someone.

          • Spencer

            Oh, right, because you had all those sources regarding this beta being equivalent to the final graphics. Lol, keep on repping hypocrites worldwide!

          • Thomas Petersen

            Yeah, except for of course the last, oh, 6 “betas” I’ve played. Go troll somewhere else, you obviously haven’t beta tested anything recently or you wouldn’t make stupid comments.

          • Spencer

            Name those betas?

          • Thomas Petersen

            Alpha and beta for Destiny, beta for Evolve, beta for Dying Light. Amazing how the final products didn’t look different, didn’t play different and launched with the bugs found during the “betas”.

            Thats why you’re looking pretty damn stupid right now. You’ll see ZERO difference between The Division beta and what will launch in March and that’s a fact.

          • Spencer

            Zero difference? Sorry, you’re wrong. They may or may not be substantial, but there are ALWAYS differences.

          • August Keller

            Hey, homeslice, they do not beta test ANY software that is hitting shelves in a month with a compiled build that is OLDER than the build they are currently working on. This is so clearly common sense I feel silly having to explain, but here goes. When you compile code, when you make even minute changes to active systems, those changes need to be compiled with ALL the rest of the code. So if they were to beta test an old build, say… 6 MONTHS old, they would be throwing away the 6 months worth of work they did in the interim. If they were to do bugfixing on a build that they were not releasing, they would face a high risk of most, if not all of the changes made in reaction to that beta being wasted. I have worked in software development. I have run QA testing. You want to go watch some fucking video and talk about how you are an expert, be my guest. Cite your sources where you learned this magical knowledge that doesn’t exist, and cite a single source that says that the build being beta tested is 6 months old, and I will eat my hat, but you cant, because neither exists.

          • Spencer

            “I have run QA testing”

            So you were a grunt who got paid minimum wage to sit and walk into walls, meaning you know absolutely nothing about games at all. Got it. Thanks for your input.

            This “beta test” isn’t designed to garner feedback to implement into the game. It’s too close to release for that. This is to drum up hype and test their servers, nothing more. Bug fixes and polish are being applied behind the scenes as the game inches to its gold status next month. The idea that you have about them just freshly minting a build of the game to send out on January 28th and then they sit on their ass and hope for good feedback a month out? Don’t be a dumbass. They’ve got their QA mostly done and are polishing the final product already. This is a months old stable build used as a marketing tool and server stress estimate.

            Come on back with any credible source other than your low end job that thousands of people have had and maybe you’ll have a case.

          • August Keller

            No, asshole. I MANAGED QA testing. Developed the Use cases, handled the testing of those use cases across multiple platforms. You are either a troll, or the absolute biggest piece of shit on the internet, and I wont waste another second on a mouth-breathing, egotistical, functionally and socially retarded boob like yourself. You have legitimately got no value whatsoever, and the only impact you have on this society is negative.

          • Spencer

            You’ll make more money selling all that salt than you will being a minimum wage QA grunt. Go be a sandy vagina elsewhere

          • AndroidVageta

            Notice how the moron doesn’t cite any sources or anything for what he says as you asked. Just more “You’re wrong I’m right because I say so” BULLSHIT.

            What a tool. People like you and I actually know what we’re talking about. There has never been ANY beta I’ve played that looks better than it’s release version. I think he has “beta” and “alpha” confused or something because his entire view on betas are way off.

          • Martin

            I heard all the same shit Spencer was saying for Witcher’s release too just dont even give him the time of day. Its funny what rationalisation can do. Compression, old build, different time of day build didn’t exist yada yada yada. Its a multiplatform game, they showed the game at its best possible state on a mega PC at E3 to build hype and sell preorders. Couldn’t run it at all on a 300$ static console with almost 5 year old obsolete hardware so gut everything and make one build for all 3 systems giving the PC a few extras. Its the same shit every time fucking multiplatform sucks.

            Why didn’t witcher 2 and Star citizen get downgraded? Why did they get better over time. Hmm tricky question.

          • AndroidVageta

            Thanks for the heads up. What you say is painfully obvious now! 😉

          • Phelonious Monk

            You know far less about game development than you claim. But you’re an expert at being a dick to strangers on the internet.

            You assume far, far too much, which only highlights your lack of knowledge on such matters

          • Spencer

            I assume no more than anyone else does. The difference is that my assumptions are based on common sense and reality and not blind, rampant cynicism and ignorance.

          • NeedleDickDoug

            “You don’t need a source to make assumptions.”

            There, I fixed it.

          • NeedleDickDoug

            And from the end of your comment, you didn’t pay ANY attention to Battlefront beta, did you? Beta state was identical to the final release, sans some balancing on the servers. I’m really glad you’ve spent the energy to argue your non-point, it’s been a long day and I needed a little laugh.

          • Spencer

            Except the performance improvements across the board, of course. I’m sure you knew that, since you looked into it, right?

          • Thomas Petersen

            Yeah, sorry, you’re wrong. What you consider a beta went out the window some time ago, especially on consoles. Destiny beta? No difference at all from beta to launch, the few bugs present were still there at launch. What you see now is what you get.

          • Spencer

            Not the case

          • Thomas Petersen

            Yeah, it is the case. Destiny, same as beta. Evolve, same as beta. Dying Light, same as beta. And The Division, same as beta.

            You’re ignorant if you think otherwise. I’ll be posting a comment here at launch, laughing at your fail.

          • Spencer

            I suggest you actually research the differences between the beta versions and final versions before making yourself look even more incompetent

          • DelishusCake

            You literally have no idea how the world of software development works. Whether you’re releasing a new warehouse management system or a video game you do NOT beta/stress test with an old version of the software. The entire purpose of the test is to see how your current code holds up. The ONLY thing changing between this weekend’s beta and the final release are any SEV 1 issues that pop up. If it’s not a critical bug it’ll be in the final release. This is how software development works. I’ve been doing it for a decade.

          • Spencer

            So you think they’re going to master the game right after the beta? You think they out the beta code, get feedback, do nothing, send the game to print anyway? Sorry, lol, no.

            What projects have you worked on?

        • -El_Greeko-

          That’s ironic, because you’re the one who actually doesn’t know shit about game development…

          • Spencer

            No, the 4K shots were taken during a recent build internally, which is why they look better. You’re proving me right with each statement, keep it up

          • 6andro

            Dear Mr. Spencer, let me (a actual software developer) tell you something about Software development (yes, games are software too).

            All your claims are pure assumptions, yet you claim that what you’re saying is absolutely true and it hurts to read it all.

            Every tiniest change in code, can cause a entirely different set of bugs or problems. Releasing an old build to beta test would only make sense if you didn’t care about the bugs or problems that might be caused by any graphical settings.

            Beta tests are there to test the games on different hardware (for all the graphical aspects) and to find other bugs not found during development and as a server stress test which you already seem to know.

            The game seen in the beta is pretty much the same as it will be released, they’re not going to test a version of the game that they’re not planning to release, that would just be plain stupid and pointless, unless they JUST wanted to stress test the servers and are very confident about the rest of the game. THAT is common sense.

            The screenshot thingy is easy to explain. As developers they have access to the highest graphics settings possible, as users we don’t, they give us a set of graphical options that allow us to change the appearance of the game in a controlled spectrum (usually testet through a beta), cause they wan’t the game to run smooth on every kind of system. Only sometimes we can set them higher through .ini files if you know what you’re doing.

            Now it’s not immpossible for the game to look better in the final version, they might polish a thing or too but it will probably be barely noticable at all as these kind of polishes are for performance reasons only.

            Just like in the witcher 3 they might release an update later on and let us enable higher graphics, or someone will post .ini changes to enable E3 like graphics or a mod (like in Watch dogs).

          • Amaroq

            We all know that nowadays, these big developers aren’t actually giving us real betas. Nowadays, “beta” is just a fancy word for “early access”. They’ve already done their actual beta testing and bugfixing and these are just marketing “betas” that they use to get people excited for the game.

            Which means even if Spencer here is right, and this beta is just to stress test servers and drum up hype, they’re still not going to be releasing a better game than the beta. They’re going to be showcasing their best so they can get people excited for the release.

            I’ve never seen a full release better than one of these PR betas either. The betas are about as good as we’re going to get, unless they add patches later.

            But let’s wait for the actual PR beta this 29th and see. And then hope the beta isn’t half of the story like Destiny. (Which I still love alas.)

          • Spencer

            “An actual software developer”

            What have you developed/worked on?

            Everything you’re saying might be correct if this beta were done months ago. This is not to get a list of bugs to iron out before release, or feedback to change the game, it’s too close for that. This is simply to stress servers and be a marketing tool. Think about it – if this beta didn’t release, so you really, honestly believe they would have more bugs in the game at launch? No. That makes no sense. This is a stable build that they’ve likely play tested internally months and months ago. They’ve been refining, bug squashing, and polishing in all the time since then.

          • 6andro

            it doesn’t really matter, software is software and you just know it better anyway.

            And what kind of marketing would it be to not put the final graphics in the beta, so everybody gets to see that what they showed at the E3 isn’t going to be in the game anyway?

            Now I won’t bother explaining any further cause clearly you are right anyway.

          • Spencer

            “It doesn’t really matter”

            Truly spoken like someone who is full of shit

          • 6andro

            Quoting things half assed and taking them out of context. Running out of things to say?

            Wasn’t expecting anything else.

          • Spencer

            You can’t describe a project you’ve worked on because you haven’t. You’re simply spouting things out to make yourself look more informed, but your lack of knowledge counteracts all of that for you. Sorry to say, you’re wrong. Also sorry to say, all software definitely does not go through the same phases. Keep trying though

          • 6andro

            whatever makes you feel better. Your opionion doesn’t affect the truth and I don’t have to prove anything to you, not even for the sake of the argument. You clearly don’t know the first thing about software development, yet here you are talking big words and despite the fact that every single person that left a reply disagrees with you, you are still trying to hold your head above the water, you must be really desperate.

            You simply are, one of many, internet trolls.

          • Spencer

            Yes, if you’re claiming something to make yourself look credible, you sure do have to prove it to me. Otherwise, you just look like the two-bit internet hack that you are, spouting off nonsense that you have no real concept of

          • 6andro

            so do I now? no I don’t, I’m just stating a fact to you, whether you believe it or not is not in my interest, it’s way more fun to see you try so hard anyway.

            If you want people to proof anything to you though how about you get startet with that and show people what all your so called “knowledge” is based upon. probably youtube though, so yeah. Allright I’m out, I’ve done my party now I’m just gonna sit back and watch you struggle against all the rest here and see what other fun facts about game development you come up with. *gets popcorn*

          • Spencer

            Prove* Started*

            It’s not a fact if you can’t prove it. Silly nooby

          • NeedleDickDoug

            He reminds me of when a house cat does something stupid, like falling off the back of the sofa, and then it struts around.

          • NeedleDickDoug

            And, what are you looking like right now? The righteous arbiter of software development truth?

          • Spencer

            At least someone who understands what a beta is. Clearly the rest of you children don’t. I shouldn’t have expected better given the community on this website, though.

            There’s a reason Justin Bieber is popular and we have the elected officials we do, after all.

          • NeedleDickDoug

            ….because children vote?

          • Spencer

            No but they’re indicative of the combined knowledge and experience of their parents who do vote.

          • Well then

            you don’t have children do you… you don’t like, implement them with your combined brain powers…. did you ever take a sex ed class????

    • -El_Greeko-

      Graphical improvements (and overall changes) are done BEFORE entering Beta. You only enter the beta stage when the only thing you have to do is iron-out the bugs, test the server-load, further optimizing the game on every platform, etc.

      If you’re changing the visuals of the game during beta stage (and I’m not talking about early access games because those are a completely different situation) then you’re extremely unprofessional.

      Not to mention that we’re talking about Ubisoft here. Even having a sight hope that the visuals will improve is flat out stupid… These guys are the ones that in 5 games, 4 are downgraded.

      Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4, The Crew, AC Unity (although only on console, after release), Rainbow Six Siege, The Division, Watch_Dogs and got downgraded. And I can ASSURE YOU that Wildlands will get downgraded as well. What they’ve shown (the forest/swamp like environment, for example) is impossible to achieve with the current-gen consoles…

      • Spencer

        Weren’t folks like you the ones saying that Battlefront’s graphics also could never happen and it’s way too advanced blah blah? Then they come out and it looked exactly that good.

        And, no, you do NOT finalize visual polish before the beta phase. Beta is unfinished software that’s in a playable state, designed to get balance feedback and stress servers. Betas in no way represent final game quality, and they never have. How little do all of you really know? It’s astounding.

        • -El_Greeko-

          No. I was actually one of the guys who defended Battlefront’s visuals. Because I know what DICE’s capable of.

          And nice strawman there. It seems that you’re a professional at beating up the strawman.

          So what do you do in the gaming industry to call yourself an expert? You must be tied with SOMETHING to know how things work…

          • Spencer

            I never called myself an expert, but I clearly know a lot more than most of you. Even what you’re saying right now is WRONG.

            FEATURE complete means that all FEATURES of the game are able to be played and are functional. VISUAL POLISH IS NOT A FEATURE.

            For example, Final Fantasy XV, according to the developers, can be played from beginning to end. All the quests, combat mechanics, etc are in place. That does NOT mean that the duscae demo is representative of the final graphical quality of the game. That’s a feature complete BETA of the game that they are playing internally. Now they focus on visual polish and optimization until release.

            I mean, you people honestly believe they’ve rushed and created a special build just for the beta launch in January to try to test for bugs to implement in less than a month? What?

          • Jamie O’hara

            Okay, but seriously, guys, Spencer may very well have a point. Yes, it may be unheard of to resort to an early build for the sake of the Beta, but let’s consider this. MASSIVE Entertainment is known for it’s track record with PC games – And they have stated multiple times that The Division on PC is built from the ground up, rather than just a simple port job. I believe that they are actually using a build similar to the Xbox One build for stability reasons, while the actual PC build is recieving polish and, depending on the beta results, bug fixes, further optimizations, server reworks…

            As another point of proof, The Division beta is only around 20 GBs. This could easily be because the beta’s level cap is 8, stopping players from proceeding further after that point, so it could very well be that a lot of higher-level elements are stripped away because of it. But take a look at the graphical screenshots – Shadows are missing, the textures aren’t actually 4k, and, while a lot of elements are there, such as objects and puddles, it feels like there’s parts missing.

            But let me put in my own argument as well. As much as I like graphics, and admire the beauty in video games, I think people have become too obsessed with graphical fidelity nowadays. Yes, Ubisoft may have very well lied to us about graphics ( We won’t know until the full release.), but people are missing why video games are called VIDEO GAMES – Gameplay. You can have the most beautiful-looking games on the planet, but it won’t mean shit if gameplay is bland, or there’s very little interactivity. Yes The Divison may not have the best looking gameplay, but it’s best not to judge a book by it’s cover – Or in this case, potentially, a game by it’s beta. 🙂

          • You got destroyed….just STFU

          • Spencer

            Yes, with their lack of facts and understanding they destroyed me. Lol you kids

      • AndroidVageta

        As I was warned above, don’t matter. Despite the fact that what you say is true about Ubisoft and appears to not change this idiot still thinks a game like Wildlands is going to look like it did at E3.

        • -El_Greeko-

          He calls himself an expert and I love how to wants to teach a 3D artist (AKA me) how game development works.

          • AndroidVageta

            I’ve been gaming for decades now and have been beta testing games since Doom 3. Since then I’ve tested numerous games and not ONCE have I see a game, in beta status, look better at launch then what I played prior too. That’s what I base my experience on. That and the fact that this is a Ubisoft game the final visuals looking exactly like they do in the beta is pretty much a given in my opinion.

          • -El_Greeko-

            Exactly, just that alone should tell you know game development works.

            As a dev team, you (usually) hit beta stage is when the product is feature complete. That means from in-game features, to assets, to textures, to FX, to Lighting, to animations, to everything… Beta stage is only to iron-out bugs (including server-load and all that jazz). The guy doesn’t know shit and he’s trying to teach everyone by using his huge ego and by pulling shit straight out of his ass… It’s pretty astonishing.

          • AndroidVageta

            I often wonder with people like this if it’s ego, trolling, stupidity…what makes them tick. What makes them think they’re right when they have no experience and all the evidence is stacked up against them. Like you said, no recent Ubisoft game has really come close to what they showed prior to release (especially games like Siege) but yet, magically, people like like this clown not only KNOW they they will change the graphics but knows more than we do on the matter despite the fact that we actually DO know what we’re talking about.

            I mean, he writes and spells decently enough so he’s got to just be a troll I would imagine. He certainly doesn’t seem to be stupid…but I guess there are plenty of people that write and spell decently enough that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old too so who the hell knows!

          • -El_Greeko-

            He’s wasted too much of his time with this already for me to consider him a troll.

          • AndroidVageta

            Yeah, I’d like to believe that. Either way, not going to argue. You and I are right. Our experiences and knowledge of how Ubi works proves that. He can believe whatever uneducated false hopes that he wants.

            Not that I won’t try to enjoy The Division, luckily I only paid $30 for the PC version, but it’s still sad because the graphics and size of the world (which was originally supposed to be much larger) is what really made me want the game…and believe me I’ve been wanting it. Other than No Man’s Sky it’s been my top wanted game since 2013 E3 so to have waited this long and be this anxious only to be met with something that looks like could it have been done on last-gen is just soooo disappointing!

          • -El_Greeko-

            I’ve also only paid €30 for it (28.99 to be exact), through Kinguin.

            And when it comes to graphics, I couldn’t care less, really. The real problem is that they continue to show extremely unrealistic versions of their games to generate hype. I don’t have a problem with the game’s graphics, I actually think the game looks pretty fucking good, but it is the fact that they continue show unrealistic bullshit. Just look up a comparison of the E3 demonstrations of Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4, Watch_Dogs, Rainbow Six Siege, The Crew, AC: Unity (although I think it was only downgraded after releasing, and it was only on consoles) The Division, and you clearly see a pattern… Not to mention that Wildlands won’t be any different.

            But as I said, I’m satisfied with the game’s graphics, and I care a lot more about gameplay and the support that the PC version will get.

    • Broman_McDudeguy

      I can’t remember the last beta I played that had any significant difference (let alone improvement) in visual quality. Let’s see:

      Rainbow Six Siege – Nope
      The Crew – Nope
      Bloodborne – Nope
      Dark Souls 2 – Nope
      Star Wars Battlefront – Nope
      Battlefield Hardline – Nope
      Battlefield 4 – Nope
      Battlefield 3 – Nope
      Battlefield BC2 – Nope
      Medal of Honor – Nope

      Good job talking down to people for having realistic expectations…

    • neoquicksilver

      So the real game is out and guess what, it looks exactly like the beta. That’s why I hate the “Well it’s just beta! Don’t worry!” guys

  • Fallout09

    Why does this game visually look flat in every picture?


      flat & blurry U.U

    • nige111

      because it’s being released on consoles.

    • AndroidVageta

      Basically because Ubisoft and the developers lied about what the game would look like for years up until this point. That’s, really, all there is to it.

      • Tyler McCartney

        Ubisoft lies about all their games. What they did with watchdogs is criminal imo.

    • Mack

      contrary to what other people are saying, it’s largely because of the compression. Play game yourself and lots of that will go away. or watch a video.

      • TWBGreatness

        very true lots of people dont know how compression works or what it does to the image if you watch gameplay they you will see a huge difference

    • Bellerophon

      Because it lacks any form of ambient occlusion.